Indeed, NEM seems to entertain the idea of free will whereas ST09 seems to entertain the idea of fate.

Click to expand...

Thinking about it a little more I think both films promote the idea of fate. Shinzon may have come up under far different circumstances than Picard but he still rose to be a powerful leader of men. Only the morality of the two characters are different.

Indeed, NEM seems to entertain the idea of free will whereas ST09 seems to entertain the idea of fate.

Click to expand...

Thinking about it a little more I think both films promote the idea of fate. Shinzon may have come up under far different circumstances than Picard but he still rose to be a powerful leader of men. Only the morality of the two characters are different.

Click to expand...

that's a pretty big "only."

Click to expand...

But regardless of situation a baby Picard is going to rise to lead others. Of course morality is going to be different because Shinzon only knew of Romulan/Reman morality.

That was not described as a time portal! Please educate yourself more.

And didn't someone say it was NOT okay to name call on this forum?

I have not called a person a name once and this person gets away with it? Talk about bias.

Click to expand...

Okay, guys, break it up. Chem, a friendly word and a friendly warning.. please refrain from namecalling, even mild if you can. trek_futurist, in future, please refrain from bias until a moderator has had reasonable time to receive and read and decide on a course of action. Contrary to popular myth, Trekkies have lives.

Star trek 2009 is NOT a star trek movie, it is a movie for people who hate star trek, to insult the real essence of star trek with. It is pure garbage for the masses and people with short attention spans who will just as easily like transformers and twilight.

Click to expand...

Bullshit.

I've been a Star Trek fan since 1966, when I was 5 years old. I have more money invested in Trek novels, behind-the-scenes books, comics, collectors glasses, games, artwork, clothing, et al, than I do in my house and truck. I've had 2 Trek fan fiction stories published, one of which won "Best Star Trek Fiction of the Year" at MediaWest, the country's largest fan-fiction convention.

I LOVED ST09. So obviously, your opinion amounts to the stuff I clean up after my dog when he eats roadkill.

It's obvious to you, nightwind1, but not to everyone. Let's dial it back, everybody. We have passionate fans on either side of the fence.

I, for one, LOVED Trek 2009. It's the movie I've been watching the most lately as it helps me stay awake when I'm working on a project. I like this alternate timeline/reality/universe quite a lot. But that doesn't mean I love the prime universe any less.

It's not one or the other. Star Trek has been full of philosophy and science and morals, but it's also been full of plotholes, technobabble, explosions, and crazy battles.

Click to expand...

I have to defend the techno-babble as being scientifically rooted. It is not just made up jargon, especially since TOS and TNG had science advisors on hand to help with that process.

And the ratio of meaningful philosophical conundrums, scientific educational dialog and meaningful plots definitely outnumbers the ratio of meaningless plot-holes.

Click to expand...

Their science advisors were often over ruled for the sake of drama and needs of the story. ST09 was no different. Though It's "reboot" is based on Many Worlds Interpretation. And as mentioned before the "black hole" used to travel in time is also based on scientific theory.

There is a book called 'the physics of star trek' which I recently had the pleasure of reading, and in it the author, a prominent physicist, compares the physics and science of star trek to 'real life' physics and concludes that, not only does star trek (meaning TNG, TOS and VOY mainly) get the science right, but has predicted certain scientific phenomenon that has come to pass. So I see your statement as being fallacious, unless it is referring to that once in a while error of specifics.

Whatever Lawrence Krauss has written, he has certainly not written that phasers or warp drive exist, merely why they might be possible.

I think we have to distinguish between science, fictional technology based on real science and magic.
Trek is not hard but soft sci-fi. Some of its technology like impulse drive is based on fusion power, other technology like the transporter acknowledges a problem that would exist in real life via the Heisenberg compensator. Genesis or red matter are basically pure magic.

I think it is nice but not necessary that Trek tries to tie some of its fictional technologies into real science. The absence of it is certainly not a deal-breaker. Or is City on The Edge of Forever bad because it does not explain how the Guardian actually performs this neat trick? Is FC bad because we don't learn more about these funky chronitions that do the trick?

Whatever Lawrence Krauss has written, he has certainly not written that phasers or warp drive exist, merely why they might be possible.

I think we have to distinguish between science, fictional technology based on real science and magic.
Trek is not hard but soft sci-fi. Some of its technology like impulse drive is based on fusion power, other technology like the transporter acknowledges a problem that would exist in real life via the Heisenberg compensator. Genesis or red matter are basically pure magic.

I think it is nice but not necessary that Trek tries to tie some of its fictional technologies into real science. The absence of it is certainly not a deal-breaker. Or is City on The Edge of Forever bad because it does not explain how the Guardian actually performs this neat trick? Is FC bad because we don't learn more about these funky chronitions that do the trick?

Click to expand...

yes, this is an important point that is often overlooked. Star Trek, like Star Wars and Doctor Who, is soft sci-fi, not hard sci-fi.

The emphasis is on the story, not the potential realism of the technology or science involved.

Anyone who doubts what I said about the science of star trek please give a reading to the physics of star trek. A reputable physicist wrote it. And while he admits that not everything is immediately conclusive in the field of trek science, he does fill in the gaps and terminology where it needs to be and explains how a leads to z, for example, when it comes to warp technology, just how much energy would be necessary, etc.

I'd say it is nice as long as it stays in the background. It's like with a period piece, you want some technobabble in the background to make it feel like sci-fi. If it comes too much into the foreground we get one of these VOY 'tech saves the day' moments.
In my opinion ST09 managed this pretty well, the technobabble term "external inertial dampener" is quasi-explained via the image of a handbrake such that it does not feel like technobabble as code for insiders ... which is, if we are honest, a territory into which TNG and VOY sometimes moved into. Or in other words, the "Big Bang Theory" jokes about Trekkers are not totally unjustified.

The reason star trek employed so much scientific jargon is because it is in keeping with the premise of the show (TOS, TNG and VOY primarily).

Which is as a medium to express not only ideas but languages of reason. And science, like logistics, is a language of reason. Which is why it is a very important component of star trek that should never be brushed aside.

It shows that humans have evolved to seek out truth, in whatever form, through evolved systems of scientific exploration.

This is what I liked so much about TNG. It didn't insult the intelligence of the viewer by coming up with things (like red matter for example) without at least trying to explain it in some rational, conclusive way. Episodes like cause and effect illustrate this.

The reason star trek employed so much scientific jargon is because it is in keeping with the premise of the show (TOS, TNG and VOY primarily).

Which is as a medium to express not only ideas but languages of reason. And science, like logistics, is a language of reason. Which is why it is a very important component of star trek that should never be brushed aside.

It shows that humans have evolved to seek out truth, in whatever form, through evolved systems of scientific exploration.

This is what I liked so much about TNG. It didn't insult the intelligence of the viewer by coming up with things (like red matter for example) without at least trying to explain it in some rational, conclusive way. Episodes like cause and effect illustrate this.

Click to expand...

I disagree, Trek is above all about enlightenment (to be strict it is about self-critical enlightenment as the bureaucracy of the Gulag and the concentration camp is also consequence of the enlightenment period) and not science.
Take TWOK, McCoy's rant about the Genesis device turns out to be correct in the next movie. Take the fuzzy 1990-2160 fictional history of Trek, science run amok via the genetic redesign of humans into Augments as well as the killing of people with radiation sickness has lead to immense suffering.

I may have made a generalized statement regarding the mindset of a person who enters into such a film, but I did not call a single individual a name, once. Nice try at diversion though.
.

Click to expand...

No, but you keep ranting that anyone who likes the new movie isn't really a Star Trek fan, has no taste, probably likes TRANSFORMER and TWILIGHT, etc. You've been on the attack against anyone who disagrees with you since your very first post.

This is what I liked so much about TNG. It didn't insult the intelligence of the viewer by coming up with things (like red matter for example) without at least trying to explain it in some rational, conclusive way. Episodes like cause and effect illustrate this.